.c 





u 



-U 



5 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 498 852 A 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



V) 



"' IG 



COLLECxE TAXATION 



REIiLAJlKS OF CHARLES W. ELIOT, PRESIDENT OF HARVARD 
UNWERSITY, BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXA- 
TION, MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE, MARCH 13, 1907 

The advocates of the several measures proposed for taxing 
colleges use as one argument in support of their proposals an 
alleged ambiguity in the present statute, an ambiguity which 
has given rise to litigation. If there be any ambiguity in the 
present statute, the opponents of the new legislation would be 
glad to have it removed; so that the intention of the Legislature 
to exempt from taxation institutions of religion, education, and 
charity may be expressed with perfect clearness. It is hard to 
see, however, how language can be plainer than the language of 
the exemption statute. Proposals to change the statute, or to 
reduce the field of its operation, are not properly described as 
proposals to remove ambiguity from the statute. Moreover, the 
proposed new acts contain the very phrase over which litigation 
has arisen, "occupied by them or their officers for the purposes 
for which they are incorporated." The courts have repeatedly 
been called upon to define the meaning of that term, ''the pur- 
poses for which they are incorporated." Senate Bills Nos. 53, 
54, and 224 retain this clause. House Bill No. 474 does not con- 
tain that phrase, because that bill relates solely to the repayment 
by the Commonwealth of one-half of any tax assessed by a city 
or town on an educational institution. Moreover, Senate Bill 
No. 54 introduces a new phrase which will be sure to give rise to 
extensive litigation. It declares that "property owned and oc- 
cupied by any college or university, or by any scientific institu- 
tion authorized to grant degrees, which is used or appropriated, 
wholly or in part, for residential, commercial, or mercantile pur- 
poses, or for dormitories, shall not be exempt from taxation." 
What are the commercial or mercantile purposes of a college, or 
university, or technical school? There are none. At Harvard 
University, for instance, there are no such purposes in any proper 



2 InjCL \Z(o 

sense of those terms. Commercial or mercantile purposes in- 
variably involve the application of a profit to private uses. Every 
man or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or trade 
is looking for a personal or private profit on every transaction. 
If he is not seeking that profit, he is not in business. 

Letting College Rooms not a Commercial Transaction 

During the hearing on last Thursday, we several times heard 
the letting of rooms to students described as a commercial trans- 
action on the part of a college. This description is obviously 
incorrect. It is not a commercial operation for a college to let 
rooms to students; because there is no profit whatever in it for 
any private individual. If, for the college itself, there is ever a 
balance of receipts over expenses on a dormitory, every dollar of 
that balance is applied to the public use of teaching. We also 
heard of the Harvard Cooperative Society as carrying on an un- 
taxed mercantile business in competition with taxed shops about 
Harvard square. I am glad to explain the case of the Harvard 
Cooperative Society; because it perfectly illustrates the real prin- 
ciple which underlies this whole subject. The Harvard Coopera- 
tive Society was formerly a society confined to members of the 
university, and intended to enable them to buy such goods as 
they needed — clothing, stationery, shoes, bats and balls, brushes, 
soap, etc. — for less money than they could be bought for in the 
ordinary retail shops. There was no profit to any individual con- 
nected with it, except this advantage of buying good articles at 
lower rates than were elsewhere procurable. It was an aid or a 
facility for students in getting an education, exactly like the col- 
lege dining-hall which yields no profit to anybody concerned, but 
enables students to buy their food cheaper than would otherwise 
be possible. A few years ago it was thought expedient to incor- 
porate the Harvard Cooperative Society, and to carry on a general 
business, not for students only, but for all comers. Up to that 
time, the Society had occupied a college building which was not 
taxed. As soon as it was incorporated, the Society bought from 
a private person the large building on the opposite side of Har- 
vard square, where its excellent business is now conducted; but 
on that building, and its other property, the Society pays taxes 
just like any other shop in Cambridge. In other words, so long 
as its business was confined to members of the University, and 
offered them, and them alone, a pecuniary advantage in buying 



Gift 
The University 



the necessaries of student life, it was exempt from taxation; but 
the moment it did a general business open to everybody, and 
conducted under the general incorporation law, it became subject 
to taxation; it had ceased to be purely an aid to students in 
getting their education. 

ExEMPTioi^ IS Based on Application of Income to a Public Use 

I cannot too strongly insist that in the ordinary mercantile 
sense there is never any "profit" on the operations of a college, 
university, or technical school. It is confusion with regard to 
the use of this word "profit" which explains the presentation of 
many of the fallacious arguments I have heard this year and in 
many former years before committees of the Legislature examin- 
ing the question of college exemptions. Every source of income 
of a college or university may be described in some inexact or 
ill-considered sense as yielding a profit; but every source of in- 
come in an institution of education, religion or charity, has a 
public application, and is not yielding a profit in the commercial 
or mercantile sense. It is curious that this confusion of thought 
arises most commonly concerning presidents' and professors' 
houses, dormitories and athletic grounds, and sometimes concern- 
ing dining-halls or refectories, but very seldom concerning the 
income from railroad stocks and bonds, public securities, mort- 
gages, or other like sources of income. I think I have never heard 
anyone propose at legislative hearings in Massachusetts that the 
personal property of institutions of religion, education, and 
charity should be taxed. The taxing proposals relate to real 
estate used, as the statute says, "for the purposes of the institu- 
tion." Now the plain fact is that the application of the whole 
income of these exempted institutions is the same, and there is 
no good reason for exempting one class or sort of property which 
does not apply to the whole property. The reason for the ex- 
emption is that the whole property of exempted institutions and 
all the income thereon is used for public purposes. When a 
college lodges and feeds students it usually competes with private 
persons who also perform these functions. That competition is 
an aid to students, and as such is one of the incentives for colleges 
to maintain dormitories and dining-halls. 

One advocate of taxing colleges last Thursday asked this ques- 
tion, "Suppose a college did nothing else but let dormitories; 
should not those dormitories be taxed?" Of course thej^ should. 



Such an institution would not be a college at all. It would be 
nothing but a provider of rooms for college students at a mer- 
cantile profit. That is exactly the business of the trustees or 
individuals who provide dormitories for students in Cambridge 
for the private profit of the owners. Such dormitories are a 
private investment, and their net rents are used for nothing but 
a private purpose; accordingly, they are all taxed, and the 
present valuation for taxation of such buildings in Cambridge is 
$2,519,900. (See p. 13.) 

Taxation of Professors' Houses and Dormitories means 
Diversion op Funds from their Present Public Use 

The advocates of the legislation which would cause professors' 
houses and dormitories to be taxed all protest that they have no 
desire to injure Massachusetts institutions of education. They 
find themselves unable to face squarely that imputation. Yet 
what they propose would take many thousands of dollars out of 
the income of these institutions now devoted to teaching, and 
apply it to streets, sewers, lights, police, fire department, etc., in 
the cities and towns where these institutions of education are 
situated. Thus Senator Feiker indicated clearly that he desired 
to secure for Northampton the full tax on $400,000 of the prop- 
erty of Smith College. That, to be sure, is only a portion of the 
property of Smith College; but if Senator Feiker had his way he 
would subtract $6,800 from the annual resources of Smith Col- 
lege applicable to education, and spend that money on the schools, 
highways, sewers, police, etc., of Northampton. He would dam- 
age Smith College just so much, and relieve taxpayers in North- 
ampton by the same amount, in spite of the fact that the presence 
of Smith College has done nothing but good to the property 
holders and business men of Northampton, — a fact which was 
demonstrated before the Recess Committee on Taxation last 
October beyond the shadow of a doubt, Northampton having 
been shown to have SSJ per cent, of the taxable property of 
Hampshire County, when it has only 30^ per cent, of the taxable 
individuals, and only 32 per cent, of the population of the County. 
In other words, Northampton is much better off than the average 
of the County. 

Another advocate of taxing professors' houses and dormitories 
suggested that Senate Bill No. 54 would probably not make more 
than a million dollars' worth of college property assessable in 



Cambridge, and that taxes on such an amount would be a trifle 
for Harvard University. True, such legislation would not ruin 
Harvard University; it would simply divert $19,000 a year, or 
four professors' salaries, from teaching purposes to the ordinary 
Cambridge objects of municipal expenditure; but so far as it 
went it would be nothing but an injury to Harvard University, 
and whoever advocates it is advocating the diversion of money 
heretofore used for educational purposes to lower public uses, 
namely, city expenses. So far forth, he is impairing the Massa- 
chusetts faith in education as the supreme public interest. I 
make allowances for the errors of some of the advocates of these 
pitiful measures, when I see that they are not Massachusetts born, 
and cannot be expected to understand the Massachusetts policy 
towards education so well as those of us who are natives; but I 
want to point out plainly that their protests that they are not 
attacking, or attempting to injure, Massachusetts institutions of 
higher education, do not blind or deceive anybody. 

Property Exempted for a Public Use Enriches a Community 

The attorney for the town of Amherst made much of the fact 
that the valuation of property exempted in the town of Amherst 
was 47 per cent, of the whole valuation of the town, or, in other 
words, that in Amherst the value of the exempted property was 
almost as great as the value of the assessable property; and he 
seemed to think that this fact proved that the presence of Am- 
herst College and the State Agricultural College in the town of 
Amherst was a burden on that town. Before the Recess Com- 
mittee on Taxation, last October, it was conclusively proved that 
the amount of exempted property in a city or town gave no 
indication whatever of the financial condition of the town itself, 
provided the amount of assessable property was well proportioned 
to the number of assessable persons in the town; that some 
Massachusetts cities and towns in which the amount of exempted 
property was large were decidedly more prosperous than similar 
cities and towns in which the amount of exempted property was 
small; that the most probable supposition was that a town with 
large amounts of exempted property would be a better town to 
live in, and therefore a more prosperous town, than a place with a 
small amount of exempted property in churches, colleges, schools, 
hospitals, and parks; but, at any rate, that the existence of a 
large amount of exempted property gave no indication that the 



town was financially oppressed or burdened. Thus, the total 
amount of exempted property in the city of Boston is enormous, 
and is increasing: as the value of land in the best parts of the city 
rises, handsomer and better-planned buildings are erected for re- 
ligious, educational, and charitable purposes, and parks and play- 
grounds increase in number and in value. 

Consider for a moment what Boston Common means in the 
way of exempted value. Consider that the Harvard Medical 
School alone has lately added three millions of dollars to the 
value of property exempted in Boston, and will, within a few 
years, add as much more, through the hospitals which are to be 
built about the Medical School. Consider what the presence of 
this State House means in the way of exempted property for the 
city of Boston. Consider the great parks and parkways which 
Boston has built and set aside forever for public enjoyment. 
And then realize fully that all these exempted properties in Bos- 
ton make it richer and not poorer; that they are not a burden; 
but a priceless possession, not only for the present, but for future 
generations. 

Exemption an Imaginary Burden 

To return to Amherst. Amherst, probably because of the 
presence within her limits of Amherst College and the State 
Agricultural College, has a lower tax rate than Ware, Easthamp- 
ton or South Hadley, comparable towns, except that they have 
not nearly so much exempted property as Amherst. The tax 
rate in Amherst is decidedly lower than the average tax rate of 
the County. It has 8| per cent, of the population of the County, 
but 8.8 per cent, of the taxable individuals residing in the County, 
and 10 per cent, of all the taxable property in the County. If 
the presence of exempted property within the limits of the town 
were a burden, Amherst's burden would indeed be large. Its 
singularly prosperous condition as compared with the rest of the 
County proves that the presence of its large proportion of ex- 
empted property is no burden at all, but simply an advantage. 
With a few insignificant qualifications, the same is true of all 
the towns and cities in the Commonwealth which enjoy the pres- 
ence of colleges or universities. No burden falls upon them in 
consequence of the exemptions within their limits; but, on the 
contrary, their financial condition is better than that of the towns 
and cities which do not enjoy the presence of valuable educa- 



tional institutions. And yet the ears of this Committee and of 
many earlier Committees have been wearied with cries for reHef 
from a burden which is wholly imaginary. 

Reimbursement of Towns not called fob, there being no 
Local Burden 

The same argument to an imaginary burden is used in support 
of the various proposals that the Commonwealth shall hereafter 
annuall}' pay to every city or town in which an educational in- 
stitution is situated the whole or one-half of the tax levied upon 
the property of such institution. This proposition assumes that 
there is a local burden resulting from the legislation of the Com- 
monwealth in favor of religious, educational, and charitable in- 
stitutions; it admits that it is the duty of the Commonwealth to 
aid such institutions, but insists that the Commonwealth should 
not force the cities and towns where these institutions are situ- 
ated to give that aid, but should give the aid itself. If, as I have 
pointed out, the legislation of the Commonwealth imposes no 
burden on the towns and cities in which these exempted institu- 
tions are situated, the whole argument for annual payments from 
the treasury of the Commonwealth to these towns and cities falls 
to the ground. The accompanying allegation that Massachusetts 
has not really aided these institutions of education and charity 
has no foundation. Massachusetts has cherished her colleges and 
technical schools by direct grants, and she aids some of them 
still in that way, besides supporting the State Agricultural Col- 
lege and the normal schools. You may still see at Harvard 
College the president's house which the Province of Massachu- 
setts built and gave to the College. You may still see there 
three other venerable buildings which the Province built and gave 
to the College, two of them built for dormitories and one for the 
other public uses of the College. Between 1636 and 1824 Harvard 
College received the sum of S21 6,000 in numerous small grants 
made by the Commonwealth in aid of the College. To-day, the 
Commonwealth is paying $25,000 a year to the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology. The Province and the Commonwealth 
have aided the institutions of higher education, and the Common- 
wealth is still aiding them. The exemption statute itself is 
effective cherishing. The Legislature of Massachusetts is far too 
intelligent to be influenced by the false statement that she ne- 
glects to cherish her institutions of higher education, and is also 



too intelligent to vote to pay large sums of money to the cities 
and. towns which contain colleges or universities, in order to re- 
lieve those communities from a wholly imaginary burden. Let 
me remark in passing that under House Bill No. 474 the Common- 
wealth would annually pay to the city of Cambridge at least 
$200,000 a year, with the sole result of reducing to that extent 
the tax levied on the taxable citizens of Cambridge. Cambridge 
already possesses more than 18 per cent, of the taxable property 
in Middlesex County, while it has but 16 per cent, of the popula- 
tion of the County. Senate Bill No. 53 proposes that the whole 
of the tax levied locally on the real estate belonging to literary 
and scientific institutions shall be paid by the Commonwealth to 
the city or town which contains the exempted institutions; under 
such a law an immense sum would be annually payable to the 
city of Boston out of the State Treasury, since Boston contains a 
large number of exempted literary and scientific institutions which 
own costly lands and buildings. To be sure, under such legisla- 
tion (if I understand it) the exempted institutions would not suffer 
any reduction of the resources applicable to their public objects, 
but the State Treasury would suffer severely, not for the promo- 
tion of religion, education, or charity, but to relieve the citizens 
of certain privileged cities or towns from a burden which is wholly 
imaginary, or, in other words, to give those fortunate cities and 
towns a large pecuniary bonus in addition to the advantages 
which they derive from the presence of the exempted institutions. 
It would be a striking peculiarity of such legislation that the more 
the value of land rose in the vicinity of the exempted institutions, 
in consequence of the good effects of those institutions on the 
towns and cities in which they are situated, the larger would be 
the payment made to those towns and cities by the Common- 
wealth. Thus, the value of the land about the site of Harvard 
College in Cambridge has risen very much within the last ten 
years, and is likely to rise, because of the presence of the College. 
The higher goes the price of land in its vicinity the higher will 
be the assessors' valuation of the territory occupied by the Col- 
lege, and the greater will be the sum to be paid annually from 
the State Treasury to the city of Cambridge. In general, the more 
prosperous the city of Cambridge or the city of Boston became, 
a prosperity indicated in the values of Cambridge or Boston real 
estate, the larger would be the sums annually to be paid by the 
Commonwealth to the city. 



Excessive Valuations 

A single foolish purchase by a small but rich college club of a 
corner lot opposite the College at an extravagant price induced 
the Cambridge assessors to raise the valuation of large areas of 
land about the site of the College, and to add correspondingly to 
their valuation of real estate exempted in Cambridge. The ad- 
ditions they made to the valuations were extravagant; so that 
they were forced subsequently to retrace some of the steps they 
had taken. Consider how the temptation to excessive valuation 
of real estate, to which assessors are now subject, would be in- 
creased, if for every increase of valuation in the real estate of 
their town or city they could suck thousands of dollars out of 
the State Treasury, under such legislation as that of Senate Bill 
No. 224 or House Bill No. 474. 

Massachusetts does not Grudge the National Service 
Rendered by its Colleges 

I heard on Thursday last with pleasure and surprise, one new 
argument in favor of putting the support of every institution of 
higher education on the state or the nation, rather than on the 
locality in which the institution is situated. Of course, this new 
argument assumed, what is conspicuously untrue, that the 
locality carries a burden in support or aid of the institution of 
education; but overlooking for a moment that ancient fallacy, 
there was a new element in the argument, namely, that while a 
church is a purely local institution, a college or technical school 
is not; for the college or technical school is resorted to by stu- 
dents from all parts of the state, or all parts of the country, and, 
therefore, the state, or the whole country, ought to support it 
or aid it. Thus students from many parts of the country and 
some foreign countries resort to Amherst College. Why should 
the town of Amherst do anything for them? The first answer to 
this question is that the town of Amherst does not support Am- 
herst College, or even contribute to its support. The College is 
supported partly by the students who resort to it and pay its 
tuition fees, and partly by the benevolent individuals in many 
parts of the country who endowed it under the protecting and 
cherishing laws of Massachusetts. How short-sighted and un- 
generous is this argument! Can we suppose that the people of 
Massachusetts, or of any town or city in Massachusetts, really 



10 

desire that the resort to Massachusetts institutions of education 
should become less national in range? Do the people of the 
Commonwealth grudge to the students who come to our excellent 
institutions of education from other parts of the country or from 
other countries, the facilities they seek and find in Massachusetts 
institutions? Do the people of the Commonwealth really desire 
to check the flow of gifts and benefactions from outside of Massa- 
chusetts to these institutions of higher education? It is incredi- 
ble that they should feel any such desire. The people are proud 
of the reputation of the Massachusetts institutions of higher 
education. They welcome to these institutions students from all 
other parts of the country and from other countries; and they 
take especial pride in promoting in every possible way the Massa- 
chusetts industry of giving instruction. Moreover, they know 
that an institution to which students resort from far and wide 
will be for that reason a better and more influential institution. 
It would be easy to check both the flow of students and the flow 
of money into the Massachusetts institutions. Would the Gen- 
eral Board of Education, lately so largely endowed, give any sup- 
port to Massachusetts institutions if they could suppose that 
Massachusetts was going to tax educational benefactions? Would 
the great stream of benefactions continue to flow to Massachu- 
setts institutions if intending givers learned that Massachusetts 
entertained a proposal to tax any part of the properties set aside 
forever under the existing laws of Massachusetts for the purposes 
of higher education? It has been repeatedly said, during the 
discussion of these bills which propose to tax certain portions of 
college property, that the immediate damage caused by this 
legislation would be small. True, the edge of the wedge is thin, 
and it is not proposed at this moment to drive it in very far; 
but no prudent man will permit even a thin wedge to be inserted 
into the post which supports the corner of his dwelling. This 
proposed legislation, petty as it is in its immediate effects, will 
go far to impair confidence in the stability of the great Massachu- 
setts policy for the support of the higher education, a policy 
which has contributed largely to make Massachusetts what it is, 
a policy which has produced institutions of education as yet 
unsurpassed in the entire country. 



11 



No Evidence that Taxed Land is Rendered Exempt Faster 
THAN Compensating Benefits are Diffused 

I turn now to consider some of the predictions about the future 
effects of insistence on the part of Massachusetts in her present 
policy of exempting from taxation her institutions of higher 
education. It is said that under the exemption policy of Massa- 
chusetts the colleges and other exempted institutions are contin- 
ually taking more and more of the real estate of their towns or 
cities out of the taxable lists by buying private property which 
has heretofore been taxed, and adding such property to the real 
estate already devoted to their own educational purposes, thus 
progressively diminishing the assessable valuations of their towns 
or cities. On this suggestion of future evil several reassuring 
comments may be made. In the first place, when a college or 
hospital buys private property in its vicinity, it pays for it, and 
the price it pays ordinarily remains as taxable property in the 
town or city. Occasionally exceptions to this rule will occur; 
but such is the rule. In the next place, by increasing its holdings, 
a college usually increases the valuations of the lands lying about 
or near its holdings, old and new. Thirdly, when a college in- 
creases its holdings, other lands in the same town or city usually 
come into use and acquire a new value. There is plenty of un- 
occupied land in every Massachusetts town or city which harbors 
a college, waiting to experience this rise of value. In the city of 
Cambridge there are at this moment hundreds of acres of un- 
marketable land waiting for Harvard University, or new indus- 
tries, or new residences to give them value. Fourthly, it is clear 
that there is no existing evil of this sort within the Common- 
wealth; and that it is never expedient to legislate against non- 
existent evils. All the towns and cities in the Commonwealth 
which contain institutions of higher education are to-day better 
off in regard to their several amounts of taxable real estate than 
the corresponding towns and cities which do not contain colleges. 
This is not a matter of opinion; it is demonstrable from the 
published tables of the Commonwealth's Tax Commissioner. If, 
in the future, any evil of this sort shall appear locally, it will 
probably not be beyond the ingenuity of the Legislature, aided by 
the assessors, to devise a local remedy. 



12 



Publicity of Accounts a Proper Condition of Exemption, and 
THE ONLY Needed Defense against its Abuse 

Finally, we must consider what weight to attribute to a line of 
argumentation always used by the advocates of taxing colleges. 
They say — where there is so much smoke there must be fire; 
where there is so much sense of injury there must be some in- 
justice; this proposed legislation is bound to come, therefore it 
had better come now. Doubtless there is fire under this smoke. 
There is the fire of ignorance, the fire of jealousy, and the fire of 
natural desire to get one's own taxes reduced by acquiring the 
right to tax large masses of visible property which now are ex- 
empted. There is also the burning zeal of assessors eager to get 
hold of new resources for taxation. The right way to deal with 
these smoky fires is to put them out by means of the cooling 
streams of knowledge, unselfishness, and public spirit, and of 
wise legislation to improve our methods of taxation. The argu- 
ment that something is bound to come, and therefore shall arrive 
now, ought to be put out of court without ceremony as wholly 
unworthy of intelligent freemen. It is not destiny which has 
made Massachusetts; it is Massachusetts that has carved out her 
own destiny. The traditional policy of Massachusetts needs, in 
my opinion, only one defense, and that is, a complete publicity 
concerning its own workings. If only the whole people of the 
Commonwealth could be shown just how the endowment and 
exemption policy has worked, and is working, for the highest 
interests of Massachusetts, the people would not permit that 
policy to be tampered with. I am not sure that existing legisla- 
tion has adequately procured this very desirable complete pub- 
licity; indeed, the amount of misapprehension on this subject 
throughout the Commonwealth, even among the educated classes, 
seems to show that the present provisions for publicity are in- 
adequate. All the wise exempted institutions publish their 
annual accounts as fully as possible. I venture to suggest to 
this Committee that no institution or society ought to be ex- 
empted from taxation which does not publish in complete form 
its annual accounts. Such publication is needed to show the 
public that the whole income of such institutions and societies 
is really devoted to public uses of religion, education, or charity. 



13 



PRIVATE DORMITORIES TAXED IN CMIBRIDGE, 1905 



Name of Building 



ClaverlyHall 

Apley Court 

Randolph Hall 

Apthorp House 

Russell HaU 

Westmorly Court . . . . 

Quincy Hall 

Brentford HaU 

Ware Hall 

Fairfax Hall 

Hampden Hall 

Little's Bl'k, 1350 Mass. Av. 
Little's Bl'k, 1358 Mass. Av. 

Dunster Hall 

Dana Chambers 

Theta Delta Chi 

Read's Block 

Draj'ton Hall 

Trinity Hall 

Craigie Hall 

Waverley Hall 

Shepherd Block 

Hapgood Hall 

25 and 27 Holyoke St. . . 

RidgelyHaU 

68 Mt. Auburn St 

5 and 7 Linden St 

Beck Hall 

66WinthropSt 

Totals 



Valuation 
of Building 



$125,000 

55,000 

200,000 

7,000 

47,000 

140,000 

20,000 

60,000 

134,000 

73,000 

130,000 

30.000 

25,000 

150.000 

70,000 

23,300 

20,000 

35.000 

15,000 

110,000 

50,000 

10,000 

10,000 

9.000 

70,000 

4,500 

7.000 

58,500 

3,000 



$1,691,300 



Valuation 
of Land 



$42,000 

27,000 

60,000 

68,000 

35.000 

57.000 

12,000 

11,400 

21,000 

72,800 

39.000 

40,500 

43,800 

50,000 

45,000 

12,000 

37,000 

7,000 

5,800 

18,000 

4,200 

8,800 

9,100 

20.000 

10.000 

15,000 

17,500 

36.000 

3.700 



Total 
Valuation 



$167,000 

82,000 

260,000 

75.000 

82,000 

197,000 

32.0C0 

71,400 

155,000 

145,800 

169.000 

70,500 

68,800 

200.000 

115.000 

35,300 

57,000 

42,000 

20,800 

128,000 

54,200 

18,800 

19,100 

29,000 

80,000 

19,500 

24,500 

94,500 

6,700 



Real Estate 
Tax 



$3,173.00 

1.558.00 

4,940.00 

1,425.00 

1,558.00 

3,743.00 

608.00 

1,356.60 

2,945.00 

2,770.20 

3,211.00 

1,339.50 

1,307.20 

3,800.00 

2,185.00 

670.70 

1,083.00 

798.00 

395.20 

2,432.00 

1,029.80 

357.20 

362.90 

551.00 

1,520.00 

370.50 

465.50 

1,795.50 

127.30 



$828,600 |$2,519.900 $47,878.10 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 498 852 P # 



